As I see it, the purpose of the prohibition is to help free the mind of an impediment that stands in the way of what they seek to attain. The young woman is not an impediment for the old monk, he carries her across and puts her down, but for the younger monk the prohibition itself is an impediment. By not touching woman one might become attached to bodily pleasure but forbidden fruit creates desire. In addition, one can become attached to the rules intended to aid detachment. Finally, there is attachment to detachment, the desire not to desire.

There is also the value of compassion and helping others as is exemplified in the Bodhisattva. The younger monk was thinking only of himself and continued to think only of himself.

You might see it that way from your perspective, but for me philosophy is a way of life, a life of self-examination, a life in which one seeks self-knowledge. But this requires the courage to be honest with yourself. All too often the inclination is to look away from oneself.

We are unknown to ourselves, we men of knowledge--and with good reason. We have never sought ourselves--how could it happen that we should ever find ourselves? It has rightly been said: 'Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also' [Matthew 6.21]; our treasure is where the beehives of our knowledge are. We are constantly making for them, being by nature winged creatures and honey- gatherers of the spirit; there is one thing alone we really care about from the heart--'bringing something home.' Whatever else there is in life, so-called ,'experiences'--which of us has sufficient earnestness for them? Or sufficient time? Present experience has, I am afraid, always found us 'absent-minded': we cannot give our hearts to it--not even our ears! Rather, as one divinely preoccupied and immersed in himself into whose ear the bell has just boomed with all its strength the twelve beats of noon suddenly starts up and asks himself: 'what really was that which just struck?' so we sometimes rub our ears afterward and ask, utterly surprised and disconcerted, 'what really was that which we have just experienced?' and moreover: 'who are we really?' and, afterward as aforesaid, count the twelve trembling bell-strokes of our experience, our life, our being--and alas! miscount them.--So we are necessarily strangers to ourselves, we do not comprehend our- selves, we have to misunderstand ourselves, for us the law 'Each is furthest from himself' applies to all eternity--we are not 'men of knowledge' with respect to ourselves. (Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals)

We do not know ourselves because we lack the courage to see the truth about ourselves. And so, we seek elsewhere. We look, as he says in the quote: “to bring something home”, as if self-knowledge is something we could go out and gather. We are “by nature winged creatures and honey- gatherers of the spirit”. And yet we are also: “as one divinely preoccupied and immersed in himself”. Although preoccupied and immersed in ourselves we look outside ourselves for what we seek, as if there is some treasure to be found that can be brought home.

What happens to us, our experience is not understood because we are preoccupied with ourselves and do not pay attention. We think that what we are looking for must be a treasure of transcendent value, hence “divinely preoccupied”. We may hear “the bell-strokes of our experience, our life, our being” but we miscount them for:”we do not comprehend our- selves, we have to misunderstand ourselves, for us the law 'Each is furthest from himself' applies to all eternity”. Why for all eternity? Because eternity is our divine preoccupation. We are immersed in ourselves in so far as we seek eternity for ourselves. This is why he calls us “winged creatures”. We fly off in search of eternity for ourselves but away from ourselves, our experience, our life, our being and thus “we are necessarily strangers to ourselves”.

You might see it that way from your perspective, but for me philosophy is a way of life, a life of self-examination, a life in which one seeks self-knowledge. But this requires the courage to be honest with yourself. All too often the inclination is to look away from oneself.

If this were true you would be open to a universal perspective. As you are you limit yourself to a cave perspective. You don't seem to be aware of the difference between experiencing impartial self knowledge and seeking self justification. They are very different.

I am quite sure that there are perspectives I know nothing of. I am quite sure that there are perspectives you know nothing of. The problem is when you jump from what you know nothing of to claims about what you know nothing of, as if this universal perspective is the perspective from which you see things.

I do not feel compelled to pursue a universal perspective, just as I do not feel compelled to pursue many other things that some people make extraordinary claims about. I simply do not feel compelled to follow one less than you do.

If you are “open” to a universal perspective than remain open to it, don’t close it off by creating it in your imagination.

You don't seem to be aware of the difference between experiencing impartial self knowledge and seeking self justification.

Impartial self knowledge is the very thing you lack. You desire some form of transcendence and fool yourself into believing you have experienced it. Your experience is not impartial or unmediated, it is heavily influenced by what you have read and what you desire and what you imagine and have spun into a story you tell yourself and others.

Being honest with yourself is not something you experience it is something you do, something you cultivate with prolonged and continued effort and practice. Perhaps you lack the courage to be honest with yourself because you fear that if you are you could no longer be able to hold onto the illusion you have created. There would be an emptiness that you would not know how to fill. And so, you gather honey.

I am quite sure that there are perspectives I know nothing of. I am quite sure that there are perspectives you know nothing of. The problem is when you jump from what you know nothing of to claims about what you know nothing of, as if this universal perspective is the perspective from which you see things.

I do not feel compelled to pursue a universal perspective, just as I do not feel compelled to pursue many other things that some people make extraordinary claims about. I simply do not feel compelled to follow one less than you do.

If you are “open” to a universal perspective than remain open to it, don’t close it off by creating it in your imagination.

You don't seem to be aware of the difference between experiencing impartial self knowledge and seeking self justification.

Impartial self knowledge is the very thing you lack. You desire some form of transcendence and fool yourself into believing you have experienced it. Your experience is not impartial or unmediated, it is heavily influenced by what you have read and what you desire and what you imagine and have spun into a story you tell yourself and others.

Being honest with yourself is not something you experience it is something you do, something you cultivate with prolonged and continued effort and practice. Perhaps you lack the courage to be honest with yourself because you fear that if you are you could no longer be able to hold onto the illusion you have created. There would be an emptiness that you would not know how to fill. And so, you gather honey.

You have no idea what is essential to have the experience of oneself necessary for self knowledge. Plato's description of the Divided Line describes levels of intellect. You deny noesis and consider dianoia as the highest degree of intellect. Denying your potential for noesis in favor of taking pride in dualistic dianoia assures you will never experience a universal perspective

You have no idea of the value of the contradiction and the door to a higher level of reality it provides. You will be forever trapped in the domain of arguing opinions unable to let go and experience the conscious vertical inner path leading towards knowledge as described by Plato which reconciles opinions.

The intelligent man who is proud of his intelligence is like the condemned man who is proud of his large cell. ~ Simone Weil

The role of the intelligence - that part of us which affirms and denies and formulates opinions is merely to submit. ~ Simone Weil

.

Your obsession with denial will prevent you from understanding What Simone is describing

The objective value of intelligence is that it can open the door to noesis. Your obsession will never allow you to "submit." Your ultimate satisfaction will come from believing you are winning arguments. You will call it philosophy.

It is a Buddhist description of a question which exists in Christianity as well: the relationship between the law and the good.

Two Buddhist Monks were on a journey, one was a senior monk, the other a junior monk. During their journey they approached a raging river and on the river bank stood a young lady. She was clearly concerned about how she would get to the other side of the river without drowning.

The junior monk walked straight past her without giving it a thought and he crossed the river. The senior monk picked up the woman and carried her across the river. He placed her down, they parted ways with woman and on they went with the journey.

In the evening the younger monk came to the elder monk and said, “Sir, as monks, we cannot touch a woman?”

The elder monk answered “yes, brother”.

Then the younger monk asks again, “but then Sir, why is it you lifted that woman by the river?”

The elder monk smiled at him and told him “I left the woman at the river’s edge a long way back, why are you still carrying her?”

Jesus healed on the Sabbath. It was against the law. The monk touched a woman. It was against the law. The Pharisees kept arguing and the monk kept arguing details. Neither had an idea of the balance between the law and the good. Is the purpose of the good to serve the law or is it the purpose of the law to serve the good?

You deny noesis and consider dianoia as the highest degree of intellect.

No, you are wrong. We have been through this before. It seems to be a blind spot for you. Try to follow along: I do not deny noesis, I deny that I have noetic knowledge , or that you have noetic knowledge (and you have admitted this). Plato’s Socrates denied he has noetic knowledge. Plato tells us he did not have noesis of the Forms. In addition, Plato gives us plenty of indications that the Forms are themselves images, part of Plato’s poesis. You can argue all you want with me, but if you want to know the truth read Plato and make the connections to learn what he says.

If you do not have noetic you cannot know if there is such a thing. You do not have noetic knowledge. I do not have noetic knowledge and so cannot know that there is not such a thing.

The objective value of intelligence is that it can open the door to noesis.

Without noetic knowledge you have no idea of whether intelligence can open the door to it. That is your opinion. It is something you have been told and something you believe. The rest is just your imagination.

Your ultimate satisfaction will come from believing you are winning arguments. You will call it philosophy.

My satisfaction comes from living the examined life, here and now; and this includes an examination not only of what I do, but of how and what I think and believe, being honest with myself, changing what needs to be changed about myself, being just, and nurturing those I love. Yes, I call it philosophy.

Buddhism teaches us that craving is the cause of all suffering and that can be philosophical as well as physical
This is why I do not do belief and also why I do not treat facts dogmatically but just accept them as being true
The older I get the less need I have to crave anything and when I am dead I will have no need for craving at all

The point is belief-in-general, not merely theological beliefs.
Re 'beliefs,' do not go along the path of Age who declared "I do not have any belief."
Beliefs are critical to human survival, e.g.

when you see lightnings in oncoming dark clouds and you are standing in the middle of a field, you better believe you could be struck by lightning and get killed, then run to a safe place

When one do not have direct experiences and knowledge, beliefs [ranging in confidence levels] are necessary especially those that are life threatening.
Such scenarios are very common in daily life.

This disagreement between F4 and me as to the value of nous or noesis is very important in terms of acquiring a human perspective. Even though many are attracted to it and especially the young, there is a strong desire on the part of secularism to destroy the impulse in the young for the sake of indoctrination. I call it spirit killing. So any college students following this thread that are attracted to noesis as explained by those like Einstein and Simone Weil are invited to seriously contemplate this short explanation. Many around you will consider you crazy if you do but if you have felt the attraction to nous, you will know that they are misguided so don’t let them discourage you from opening to conscious contemplation.

Nous is the special faculty or part of the soul by which one perceives truth and other things of a more divine nature, such as Virtue. The exercise of the Nous – i.e., knowing things by means of it – is called noesis.

Noesis is often compared to vision; it is something like 'seeing' a truth. When we say, "Ah, now I see your point" and the like, that expresses having a noetic understanding or grasp of a truth or principle.

If you have had an aha moment you have had a noetic experience. You have seen a truth beyond what is revealed through dualistic reason. If you have had such experiences consider yourself fortunate. You’ve experienced a rudimentary indication of what human consciousness is capable of

Today there is no English word in common use that carries the same meaning as Nous. As a result, the concept of the Nous has all but vanished from modern science. Historically, the words Intellect and Intelligence meant much the same thing as Nous; however today that connection is obscured by a very broad meaning of 'intelligence', which can be even applied to animals and machines (because they can, for example, plan and learn). However Nous is something like consciousness itself, and, at least with machines, certainly wouldn't be applicable.

We can see how easy it is to lose our understanding of nous when it becomes part of the word intelligence. Animal and computer intelligence is completely different from nous.

Another possible English near-equivalent is Reason. But here we must distinguish between Reason and reasoning. Reasoning is a form of discursive thought, whereas noesis is direct apprehension of truth. Discursive thought corresponds to what Greek philosophers called dianoesis, which is associated with a different mental faculty, the dianoia. Reason itself (i.e., Nous) is part of reasoning – i.e., the means by which we perceive trueness of an argument or inference.

A person who has had an aha moment will have experienced the difference between reasoning as discursive thought and the direct apprehension of noesis. Discursive thought is important in daily life but It is only through noesis that we can begin to experience the greater reality above Plato’s divided line the human essence is called to. Secularism and its glorification of discursive reason will discourage noesis and its potential to feel our relationship to our conscious source. But if you have experienced what human consciousness is called to experience and felt the attraction to eros, believe me you are not crazy; you have felt human conscious potential and what a human perspective is capable of.

It goes on but you’ve got the picture. Noesis is direct apprehension of a higher reality that reconciles duality, If you have experienced it you know how valuable it is. It raises the obvious question if a person can have a human perspective without having experienced the higher and lower within themselves and the experience of noesis which reconciles their opposition?

This disagreement between F4 and me as to the value of nous or noesis is very important in terms of acquiring a human perspective. Even though many are attracted to it and especially the young, there is a strong desire on the part of secularism to destroy the impulse in the young for the sake of indoctrination. I call it spirit killing. So any college students following this thread that are attracted to noesis as explained by those like Einstein and Simone Weil are invited to seriously contemplate this short explanation. Many around you will consider you crazy if you do but if you have felt the attraction to nous, you will know that they are misguided so don’t let them discourage you from opening to conscious contemplation.

Nous is the special faculty or part of the soul by which one perceives truth and other things of a more divine nature, such as Virtue. The exercise of the Nous – i.e., knowing things by means of it – is called noesis.

Noesis is often compared to vision; it is something like 'seeing' a truth. When we say, "Ah, now I see your point" and the like, that expresses having a noetic understanding or grasp of a truth or principle.

If you have had an aha moment you have had a noetic experience. You have seen a truth beyond what is revealed through dualistic reason. If you have had such experiences consider yourself fortunate. You’ve experienced a rudimentary indication of what human consciousness is capable of

Today there is no English word in common use that carries the same meaning as Nous. As a result, the concept of the Nous has all but vanished from modern science. Historically, the words Intellect and Intelligence meant much the same thing as Nous; however today that connection is obscured by a very broad meaning of 'intelligence', which can be even applied to animals and machines (because they can, for example, plan and learn). However Nous is something like consciousness itself, and, at least with machines, certainly wouldn't be applicable.

We can see how easy it is to lose our understanding of nous when it becomes part of the word intelligence. Animal and computer intelligence is completely different from nous.

Another possible English near-equivalent is Reason. But here we must distinguish between Reason and reasoning. Reasoning is a form of discursive thought, whereas noesis is direct apprehension of truth. Discursive thought corresponds to what Greek philosophers called dianoesis, which is associated with a different mental faculty, the dianoia. Reason itself (i.e., Nous) is part of reasoning – i.e., the means by which we perceive trueness of an argument or inference.

A person who has had an aha moment will have experienced the difference between reasoning as discursive thought and the direct apprehension of noesis. Discursive thought is important in daily life but It is only through noesis that we can begin to experience the greater reality above Plato’s divided line the human essence is called to. Secularism and its glorification of discursive reason will discourage noesis and its potential to feel our relationship to our conscious source. But if you have experienced what human consciousness is called to experience and felt the attraction to eros, believe me you are not crazy; you have felt human conscious potential and what a human perspective is capable of.

It goes on but you’ve got the picture. Noesis is direct apprehension of a higher reality that reconciles duality, If you have experienced it you know how valuable it is.
It raises the obvious question if a person can have a human perspective without having experienced the higher and lower within themselves and the experience of noesis which reconciles their opposition?

Many people have had experiences of the higher reality of non-duality [an altered state of consciousness] or noesis through many paths and various reasons, e.g.

My point is, it is critical that we impute a steering-wheel so that we can modulate and control such impulses and experience to optimize whatever the benefit.

The other aspect is the many theories relating to the above direct experiences.

The limitation to the above experience and so-called noesis is the negative elements attached to the above.
One of the limiting perspective is that the above experiences are related to an absolute independent reality aka God or the Absolute i.e. related to Einstein, Simone Weil and other theists. The danger here are the associated evil and violent acts.

I believe the critical approach [which you resist] is to understand the neural and psychological elements of the altered state of consciousness to the extent of being able to modulate the processes so to enable the individual[s] and humanity to optimize the respective well being.

One thing that F4 seems to overlook: how can we come to know ourselves if we ignore the universal aspect of Being or fool ourselves into believing we don't need it? For a leaf cannot turn or a thought stir without affecting the whole universe from which we cannot be separated. Personally, I still think F4 is the definition of he abhores: someone too infatuated with his thoughts and opinions to see the truth about himself.

One thing that F4 seems to overlook: how can we come to know ourselves if we ignore the universal aspect of Being or fool ourselves into believing we don't need it? For a leaf cannot turn or a thought stir without affecting the whole universe from which we cannot be separated. Personally, I still think F4 is the definition of he abhores: someone too infatuated with his thoughts and opinions to see the truth about himself.

VA, on the other hand, is just plain nuts.

If I am not mistaken F4 do believe some sort of universal being/reality [not personal God]. I disagree with F4 on such a belief.

"to see the truth about himself" ???
I don't think you know the truth about yourself in being deceived by your mind in believing in an illusory God. You get all worked up when others critique your beliefs.